This blog entry has several purposes. One is to highlight recent research on sleep loss and its effects. Another is to illustrate some of the research techniques used to document the effects of sleep loss.
A recent article in New York Magazine inspired this entry. Here's the link to that article. The article references survey research conducted by the National Sleep Foundation. Basically, children are sleeping less than they did 30 years ago. Very few (5%) high school seniors get eight hours sleep a night. The average sleep time for them is about six and a half hours. Here's a link to an article about this research.
Avi Sadeh, a researcher at Tel Aviv University, conducted a sleep study where he asked 4th and 6th graders to either sleep a little more or sleep a little less each night for three nights. The children were randomly assigned to either group.
Sadeh was worried that his treatment (which was about a half hour of more sleep or less sleep each night) would not be enough to detect. The dependent variable he used, a test of neurobiological functioning, detected large differences because of sleep loss. The sleepy sixth graders functioned worse than normal fourth graders. See: The effects of sleep restriction and extension on school-age children: What a difference an hour makes. Child Development, 74, 444-455. Sadeh need not have worried about his design. One hour made a big difference.
Much other research supports the relationship between sleep loss and academic problems. In response, some school districts are moving the start of the school day to a later time. Two school districts, one in Minnesota and one in Kentucky reported amazing results. In Minnesota, SAT scores went up. In Kentucky, driving accidents for teens went down.
Response to these data has not been what you might expect. Only a few school districts have started school later. Not many parents have made their children sleep more. The bottom line? We all need more sleep.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Friday, October 12, 2007
Scientific Societies: History and Psychological
The Royal Society
In chapter 12 (p. 384) we discuss the forming of the Royal Society, the first scientific society, founded in 1662. We also mention the American Psychological Association, the Association for Psychological Science, and the seven regional psychological associations.
Scientific societies hold an important role in science. Many publish journals and nearly all hold annual meetings. Scientific societies also help scientists identify themselves professionally and give them a venue for meeting other scientists who are interested in similar topics.
The Royal Society has the longest history, naturally, and this page tells the story of the Society. Before the actual founding of the society, English scientists began meeting in what they called an "invisible college" to discuss the ideas of Francis Bacon. Two of those early scientists were Christopher Wren and Robert Boyle. Robert Hooke and Isaac Newton were two other early members. Their correspondence led Newton to develop his theory of universal gravitation.
In 1679, Hooke, then the secretary of the Royal Society, wrote to Newton inviting him to correspond about scientific topics of mutual interest to them. (See: Cohen, I. B., (1981). Newton's discovery of gravity, Scientific American, 244 (3), 166-179 for a comprehensive account.) A few years earlier, Hooke and Newton had disagreed over Newton's work on optics. So, intense was Hooke's criticism that Newton nearly gave up science.
Their new correspondence was amicable and related to planetary motion and the predicted paths of objects in space as they were influenced by other objects. After a visit by Edmund Halley, the discoverer of Halley's comet, Newton's ideas became firmer. Halley urged Newton to publish his ideas and Newton did, writing De Motu.
Psychological Societies
The American Psychological Association was founded in 1892 in the home of G. Stanley Hall. Fernberger's account tells much about the first 50 years of the association. The Association for Psychological Science was founded in 1988. This link provides a timeline of APS's history.
Information on the regional psychological associations can be found here. As we mention in chapter 12, the seven regionals are: the Eastern Psychological Association (EPA), the Midwestern Psychological Association (MPA), the New England Psychological Association (NEPA), the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association (RMPA), the Southeastern Psychological Association (SEPA), the Southwestern Psychological Association (SWPA), and the Western Psychological Association (WPA).
The seven regionals differ in size. The WPA and MPA are the largest. NEPA is the smallest. The EPA and SEPA are mid-sized and the SWPA and RMPA are slightly smaller. All of the regionals meet annually in cities within their regions. The MPA nearly always meets in Chicago (at the Palmer House Hotel) while the others move from city to city.
Many students, both undergraduate and graduate, attend the meetings of regional and national societies. The meetings provide many learning opportunities for them. Check the links above for a meeting near you and try to attend.
In chapter 12 (p. 384) we discuss the forming of the Royal Society, the first scientific society, founded in 1662. We also mention the American Psychological Association, the Association for Psychological Science, and the seven regional psychological associations.
Scientific societies hold an important role in science. Many publish journals and nearly all hold annual meetings. Scientific societies also help scientists identify themselves professionally and give them a venue for meeting other scientists who are interested in similar topics.
The Royal Society has the longest history, naturally, and this page tells the story of the Society. Before the actual founding of the society, English scientists began meeting in what they called an "invisible college" to discuss the ideas of Francis Bacon. Two of those early scientists were Christopher Wren and Robert Boyle. Robert Hooke and Isaac Newton were two other early members. Their correspondence led Newton to develop his theory of universal gravitation.
In 1679, Hooke, then the secretary of the Royal Society, wrote to Newton inviting him to correspond about scientific topics of mutual interest to them. (See: Cohen, I. B., (1981). Newton's discovery of gravity, Scientific American, 244 (3), 166-179 for a comprehensive account.) A few years earlier, Hooke and Newton had disagreed over Newton's work on optics. So, intense was Hooke's criticism that Newton nearly gave up science.
Their new correspondence was amicable and related to planetary motion and the predicted paths of objects in space as they were influenced by other objects. After a visit by Edmund Halley, the discoverer of Halley's comet, Newton's ideas became firmer. Halley urged Newton to publish his ideas and Newton did, writing De Motu.
Psychological Societies
The American Psychological Association was founded in 1892 in the home of G. Stanley Hall. Fernberger's account tells much about the first 50 years of the association. The Association for Psychological Science was founded in 1988. This link provides a timeline of APS's history.
Information on the regional psychological associations can be found here. As we mention in chapter 12, the seven regionals are: the Eastern Psychological Association (EPA), the Midwestern Psychological Association (MPA), the New England Psychological Association (NEPA), the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association (RMPA), the Southeastern Psychological Association (SEPA), the Southwestern Psychological Association (SWPA), and the Western Psychological Association (WPA).
The seven regionals differ in size. The WPA and MPA are the largest. NEPA is the smallest. The EPA and SEPA are mid-sized and the SWPA and RMPA are slightly smaller. All of the regionals meet annually in cities within their regions. The MPA nearly always meets in Chicago (at the Palmer House Hotel) while the others move from city to city.
Many students, both undergraduate and graduate, attend the meetings of regional and national societies. The meetings provide many learning opportunities for them. Check the links above for a meeting near you and try to attend.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Scientific Facts Do Not Speak for Themselves
In chapter 5 (p. 127) we write, "Although you may have heard that the data speak for themselves, this isn't true. It is the researcher's (and others') explanations that speak for the data."
Recently, Matthew Nisbet and Dietram Scheufele expanded on this thought in an article online. That article, "The facts never speak for themselves, which is why scientists need to "frame" their messages to the public," looks at science and how its methods and results are communicated by scientists and the media to the public.
They define framing as a way to "tailor messages in ways that make them personally relevant and meaningful to different publics." They argue that the older model of science, the popular science model, assumes "that the facts will speak for themselves and will win out, with no attention to how the facts are presented." We don't agree with popular science model either.
Here are some of the frames they identified in their research on science communication:
As a "first step" they suggest that scientists must learn to be better spokespersons for their work. Scientific leaders, especially, must lead the way. They are the ones in positions that can effect positive change the quickest. They also suggest greater public dialog about science. However, they are not optimistic that great numbers of the public will attend such meetings.
They praise, E. O. Wilson's book, An Appeal to Save Life on Earth, because he frames his arguments scientifically, personally, and morally. That multiple framing, they say, has led to religious audiences reading and discussing his book.
They cite reasons why science and its results fare are so poorly communicated. People pay more attention to sources that confirm what they already believe. New and expanding media outlets such as the Internet and television offer the potential for better informing the public, yet paradoxically, they are not used by the public. Instead, only a small minority tune in to content about science. They rest look elsewhere.
They give specific examples of well known and little known instances of science and framing. Among the well known are evolution vs. intelligent design and stem cell research. Less well known (in the United States, but not in Europe) are plant biotechnology and nanotechnology.
As stated in the beginning, we agree with Nisbet and Scheufele. Scientists must be advocates for their data. We would add, that another strategy toward this goal is to teach budding scientists, from the outset, that the data do not speak for themselves.
Recently, Matthew Nisbet and Dietram Scheufele expanded on this thought in an article online. That article, "The facts never speak for themselves, which is why scientists need to "frame" their messages to the public," looks at science and how its methods and results are communicated by scientists and the media to the public.
They define framing as a way to "tailor messages in ways that make them personally relevant and meaningful to different publics." They argue that the older model of science, the popular science model, assumes "that the facts will speak for themselves and will win out, with no attention to how the facts are presented." We don't agree with popular science model either.
Here are some of the frames they identified in their research on science communication:
- morality/ethics
- social progress
- racing to find a cure
- economic competitiveness
- brain drain
- Pandora's box
- high tech inspired by nature
- asbestos
- Frankenfood
As a "first step" they suggest that scientists must learn to be better spokespersons for their work. Scientific leaders, especially, must lead the way. They are the ones in positions that can effect positive change the quickest. They also suggest greater public dialog about science. However, they are not optimistic that great numbers of the public will attend such meetings.
They praise, E. O. Wilson's book, An Appeal to Save Life on Earth, because he frames his arguments scientifically, personally, and morally. That multiple framing, they say, has led to religious audiences reading and discussing his book.
They cite reasons why science and its results fare are so poorly communicated. People pay more attention to sources that confirm what they already believe. New and expanding media outlets such as the Internet and television offer the potential for better informing the public, yet paradoxically, they are not used by the public. Instead, only a small minority tune in to content about science. They rest look elsewhere.
They give specific examples of well known and little known instances of science and framing. Among the well known are evolution vs. intelligent design and stem cell research. Less well known (in the United States, but not in Europe) are plant biotechnology and nanotechnology.
As stated in the beginning, we agree with Nisbet and Scheufele. Scientists must be advocates for their data. We would add, that another strategy toward this goal is to teach budding scientists, from the outset, that the data do not speak for themselves.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Epidemiology's Methods
Several recent articles have highlighted how epidemiologists conduct research and some have criticized their results.
An LA Times article discusses some of these results, methods, and criticisms. Some of the past results have been 180 degrees apart. Look at the results they cite about coffee and its effects. In 1981, a study concluded that two or three cups of coffee a day tripled the risk of pancreatic cancer. In 2001, another, larger study concluded that the earlier results were not true. Similarly, a 1981 study found that drinking coffee reduced the risk of colorectal cancer. Predictably, a later study in 2005 contradicted it.
Most epidemiological studies are observational. As we discuss in chapter 10, observational studies (e.g., naturalistic observation and participant observation) do not alter the situation under observation. Other ways to conduct epidemiological research is through cohort studies, case control studies (or retrospective), and cross-sectional studies.
The big advantage of epidemiological studies is that they are relatively cheap to conduct. However, they do not allow researchers to make cause-and-effect conclusions about the variables under investigation.
Much better results are provided by randomized clinical trials (or what we call true experiments). Randomized clinical trials are the medical version of true experiments. In a clinical trial, two (or more) groups are created by a random procedure.
Another LA Times article highlights some of the recent research discrepancies discovered by observational methods vs. clinical trials.
A long New York Times article also covers the issues inherent in observational research. That article concludes:
An LA Times article discusses some of these results, methods, and criticisms. Some of the past results have been 180 degrees apart. Look at the results they cite about coffee and its effects. In 1981, a study concluded that two or three cups of coffee a day tripled the risk of pancreatic cancer. In 2001, another, larger study concluded that the earlier results were not true. Similarly, a 1981 study found that drinking coffee reduced the risk of colorectal cancer. Predictably, a later study in 2005 contradicted it.
Most epidemiological studies are observational. As we discuss in chapter 10, observational studies (e.g., naturalistic observation and participant observation) do not alter the situation under observation. Other ways to conduct epidemiological research is through cohort studies, case control studies (or retrospective), and cross-sectional studies.
The big advantage of epidemiological studies is that they are relatively cheap to conduct. However, they do not allow researchers to make cause-and-effect conclusions about the variables under investigation.
Much better results are provided by randomized clinical trials (or what we call true experiments). Randomized clinical trials are the medical version of true experiments. In a clinical trial, two (or more) groups are created by a random procedure.
Another LA Times article highlights some of the recent research discrepancies discovered by observational methods vs. clinical trials.
A long New York Times article also covers the issues inherent in observational research. That article concludes:
- "All of this suggests that the best advice is to keep in mind the law of unintended consequences. The reason clinicians test drugs with randomized trials is to establish whether the hoped-for benefits are real and, if so, whether there are unforeseen side effects that may outweigh the benefits. If the implication of an epidemiologist's study is that some drug or diet will bring us improved prosperity and health, then wonder about the unforeseen consequences. In these cases, it's never a bad idea to remain skeptical until someone spends the time and money to do randomized trial and, contrary to much of the history of the endeavor to date, fails to refute it."
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
You be good, see you tomorrow...
It's unique for a parrot to have last words: "You be good, see you tomorrow. I love you."
Those were Alex's last words before he went into his cage on Thursday, September 6, 2001. Alex, of course, was Irene Pepperberg's famous African Grey parrot. She had taught him over 150 words, revolutionizing the area of animal cognition in the process.
Alex had been with Pepperberg since 1977 and was 31 years old. Her research continues with two other parrots: Griffin and Arthur.
Rest well Alex, and well done.
Here is a link to a New York Times article about Alex's life. Here is a link to The Alex Foundation, a Web page devoted to Alex and his work.
Those were Alex's last words before he went into his cage on Thursday, September 6, 2001. Alex, of course, was Irene Pepperberg's famous African Grey parrot. She had taught him over 150 words, revolutionizing the area of animal cognition in the process.
Alex had been with Pepperberg since 1977 and was 31 years old. Her research continues with two other parrots: Griffin and Arthur.
Rest well Alex, and well done.
Here is a link to a New York Times article about Alex's life. Here is a link to The Alex Foundation, a Web page devoted to Alex and his work.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Types of Science
In chapter 1, we discuss science in some detail because we believe it is important for students to know where psychology fits within science itself and how its methods compare to other scientific disciplines.
Diana Rhoten's recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education (The dawn of networked science, Vol. 54, Issue 2, Page B12) adds much to the story of how science has developed in the last 100 years.
She provides the following classification of science: bench-top science, big science, team science, and networked science.
Two good examples of bench-top science are Mendel's research on peas and Goddard's research on rocketry. Both were low-budget and conducted alone or in small groups.
Here's a picture I took at the Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC showing one of Goddard's early rockets (that's Robert Goddard in the background). He and his collaborators used to drive out to the country with their disassembled rockets in the back of a pickup truck. They would put the rockets together, shoot them off, and sometimes had to run from local farmers afterward.
After World War II, rocket science became a part of big science. The United States government captured many German V-2 rockets along with many scientists and began a major research project in rocketry. That research led to ICBMs and to manned spaceflight. If it costs a few million dollars or more, it's probably big science.
Big science not only costs lots of money, it also requires a top-down infrastructure. Rhoten notes research such as the Manhattan Project and the Hubble Space Telescope as examples of big science.
Team science, she says, "is often centered on researchers whose main ties are to the given intellectual challenge." (and not to a particular institution). An early and successful example of team science is the Human Genome project. In that research, scientists from many disciplines from laboratories all around the world collaborated to solve a particular problem. They did so ahead of schedule and under budget.
Networked science is emerging now thanks to advanced computer technologies and networks. New and virtual entities such as InnoCentive and the Biomedical Informatics Research Network offer opportunities for scientists everywhere to solve problems (and get paid for it). Rhoten cites the case of Edward Melcarek. He is a scientist who works on problems for InnoCentive. Click here for a Wired.com article on Melcarek.
Networked science may offer a mechanism to return to a model more similar to bench-top science than to big science.
Diana Rhoten's recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education (The dawn of networked science, Vol. 54, Issue 2, Page B12) adds much to the story of how science has developed in the last 100 years.
She provides the following classification of science: bench-top science, big science, team science, and networked science.
Two good examples of bench-top science are Mendel's research on peas and Goddard's research on rocketry. Both were low-budget and conducted alone or in small groups.
Here's a picture I took at the Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC showing one of Goddard's early rockets (that's Robert Goddard in the background). He and his collaborators used to drive out to the country with their disassembled rockets in the back of a pickup truck. They would put the rockets together, shoot them off, and sometimes had to run from local farmers afterward.After World War II, rocket science became a part of big science. The United States government captured many German V-2 rockets along with many scientists and began a major research project in rocketry. That research led to ICBMs and to manned spaceflight. If it costs a few million dollars or more, it's probably big science.
Big science not only costs lots of money, it also requires a top-down infrastructure. Rhoten notes research such as the Manhattan Project and the Hubble Space Telescope as examples of big science.
Team science, she says, "is often centered on researchers whose main ties are to the given intellectual challenge." (and not to a particular institution). An early and successful example of team science is the Human Genome project. In that research, scientists from many disciplines from laboratories all around the world collaborated to solve a particular problem. They did so ahead of schedule and under budget.
Networked science is emerging now thanks to advanced computer technologies and networks. New and virtual entities such as InnoCentive and the Biomedical Informatics Research Network offer opportunities for scientists everywhere to solve problems (and get paid for it). Rhoten cites the case of Edward Melcarek. He is a scientist who works on problems for InnoCentive. Click here for a Wired.com article on Melcarek.
Networked science may offer a mechanism to return to a model more similar to bench-top science than to big science.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
J. Michael Bailey: The Rest of the Story
On page 334 (in chapter 10), we mention the travails of J. Michael Bailey after he published his book, The Man Who Would be Queen (2003).
Specifically, we wrote:
Bailey has been confronted by several critics, the most prominent is Lynn Conway from the University of Michigan. She maintains a Web page investigating the publication of Bailey's book.
An ethics scholar, Alice Dreger, has conducted an investigation of the case. Her report can be found at http://www.bioethics.northwestern.edu/. It will be published soon in the Archives of Sexual Behavior.
The participant who accused Bailey of sexual misconduct did so five years after the alleged incident. Whether or not the incident actually took place has never been determined.
Two of the other participants who complained about being mentioned in the book were not, in fact, mentioned. The other two said they knew their stories would be in the book.
In short, much ado about something has marked this case. We still stand behind our advice, communication and documentation are essential in small-N research. Bailey could have avoided much of what happened had he made things more clear to his participants at the beginning.
Specifically, we wrote:
- Another ethical concern involves informed consent and communication with participants. Because most small–N research involves close and extended contact between researchers and participants, a personal relationship is more likely to develop than in other types of psychological research. The perils of relationship and role confusion in small-N research were evident after Bailey (2003) published a book about transsexuals. After its publication, several of the transsexuals studied accused Bailey of failing to inform them that their interactions with him constituted research. One “participant” claimed that she and Bailey had sex during the time he later claimed he had been observing her as part of his research.
Bailey has been confronted by several critics, the most prominent is Lynn Conway from the University of Michigan. She maintains a Web page investigating the publication of Bailey's book.
An ethics scholar, Alice Dreger, has conducted an investigation of the case. Her report can be found at http://www.bioethics.northwestern.edu/. It will be published soon in the Archives of Sexual Behavior.
The participant who accused Bailey of sexual misconduct did so five years after the alleged incident. Whether or not the incident actually took place has never been determined.
Two of the other participants who complained about being mentioned in the book were not, in fact, mentioned. The other two said they knew their stories would be in the book.
In short, much ado about something has marked this case. We still stand behind our advice, communication and documentation are essential in small-N research. Bailey could have avoided much of what happened had he made things more clear to his participants at the beginning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
